With proposed legislation to create school vouchers in Texas, a majority of taxpayer money could go to private schools that teach anti-science ideas and young-earth creationism.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has made “school choice” his mission over the last few years, going so far as to spend 2024 actively campaigning against rural Republicans — members of his own party — who opposed his plan. His goal: To ensure he would have enough votes in the current legislative session to pass his plan to allocate state funds to private sectarian schools.
In his State of the State address Feb. 2, Abbott once again declared passing a school voucher bill one of seven “emergency” items he wants the Legislature to addresss.
What’s wrong with this plan?
There are many reasons for Texans to oppose school vouchers, including that they are tools used to enforce racial segregation and to harm students with disabilities whom private schools are not legally obligated to accept. Time and time again we’ve also seen in other states how vouchers primarily benefit wealthy families who already send their kids to private schools.
Mara Bim
I was in Austin Jan. 28 and attended the Texas Senate Education Committee public comments session where I spoke in opposition to Senate Bill 2 — Texas’s newest iteration of the voucher bill.
As I listened to the testimony at the Senate Committee hearing, new red flags were raised for me. The committee — in order to stack the deck in its favor — began the hearing with two and a half hours of conversation between the senators and invited guests who spoke glowingly of the bill. A little too glowingly, actually.
I left the hearing wondering who some of those “invited guests” were and what stake (financial or otherwise) they have in the passage of SB-2.
As a taxpayer whose money will fund “school choice” in Texas, as a parent whose daughter attends a public elementary school and as a Baptist who believes in both science and freedom of religion, what I have found SB-2 to support is stunning.
Financial and moral stake in education
While much of the rhetoric in Texas has focused on “parental rights” and “individual choice,” taxpayers, too, have a stake in the education of our young people. And it isn’t just that young people learn to read and write, but, as Thomas Jefferson noted in a 1787 letter:
And say finally whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government, or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. … They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others at our nation’s founding were concerned not only about having an educated citizenry but about how that education would take place. They also were concerned about the religious liberty of taxpayers. They fought to prevent citizens from seeing their tax dollars fund religious education that they might disagree with.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson
In 1784 Virginia, the Gov. Patrick Henry (known for his Revolutionary War declaration “give me liberty or give me death”) introduced a bill known as “A Bill Establishing A Provision for Teachers of the Christian” that pushed for a general assessment tax to fund Christian education in order to instill morality within the new state. Moreover, he argued such a bill would not infringe upon the religious liberties of the public, because all would benefit:
Whereas the general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society, which cannot be effected without a competent provision for learned teachers, who may be thereby enabled to devote their time and attention to the duty of instructing such citizens as from their circumstances and want of education cannot otherwise attain such knowledge; and it is judged such provision may be made by the Legislature, without counteracting the liberal principle heretofore adopted and intended to be preserved, by abolishing all distinctions of preeminence amongst the different societies or communities of Christians.
James Madison responded with a petition to the General Assembly of Virginia known as the “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.” Below are excerpts of this petition that are relevant to SB-2 and the entangling of religion and education. I quote it at length because, from this petition came the reasoning behind the adamant enforcement of what we have come to call “the separation of church and state.”
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
- Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” (Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16) The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. …
- Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited. …
- Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
- Because the Bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. … Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man. …
- Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. …
- Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. …
- Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
- Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. …
- Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. … Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. …
- Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens.
- Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. …
- Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity … it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error. …
- Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. …
- Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. …
- Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. … Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration.
Two years after Madison (a Christian) appealed to the Virginia Legislature, Thomas Jefferson and other sectarians joined them in passing a bill known as the “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” which later informed the language of the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“The reasoning behind our country’s strict adherence to the separation of church and state stemmed initially from opposition to an education bill.”
The reasoning behind our country’s strict adherence to the separation of church and state stemmed initially from opposition to an education bill.
Highlights from invited testimony
In the invited testimony before the Senate Committee on Education, something kept coming up over and over that raised alarm bells for me. The guests repeatedly expressed gratitude to the Senate committee for the “freedom” afforded to them in SB-2 and dismissed any legal concerns around church-and-state separation. One of the invited guests, along with Sen. Mayes Middleton, selectively quoted from Texas state law and history to repeatedly underscore what they see as the unbounded “freedom” given to these private schools to use taxpayers’ money.
Robert Enlow
Robert Enlow, president and CEO of EdChoice (a school-choice advocacy and scholarship organization), testified:
We started our foundation with the simple notion that the way to create the most effective, efficient and equitable way to provide education to all children is to separate the taxpayer financing for much of this from the government-running of schools.
There’s tons of studies looking to the civic effects — the idea that children who are in voucher programs are more tolerant, they get more involved in their school, they talk to their teachers more, they’re more engaged and their parents vote more. … What this means is that Texas lawmakers can vote for school choice with confidence knowing that both immediately and over time SB-2 will have positive impacts on the lives of at least 95,000 students and Texas will benefit from the learnings we’ve had.
Nathan Cunneen
Nathan Cunneen, Texas state director at the American Federation for Children (an advocacy organization), testified:
This proposal maximizes freedom for families and students while placing common sense guardrails for providers, vendors and the EAOs that would help administrate the program. Guardrails are not the same thing as strings attached. Numerous school choice programs around the country have had similar accountability measures as these for decades and not in one instance has that led to the government takeover of private schools or the further regulation of homeschoolers. I would encourage this committee to be incredibly clear with their language in making it clear that this program will not attempt to infringe on the protections placed on private schools and students.
Arif Panju
Arif Panju, managing attorney of the Texas Office of Institute for Justice (a national legal advocacy organization pushing for school choice in states across the country), testified:
It is our opinion at (Institute for Justice) that SB-2 fully complies with the U.S. Constitution and with the Texas Constitution — referring to the education clause, which is what you hear about often. … What’s left with opponents is education clauses. And they like to weaponize a state constitution’s education clause, which requires a very simple thing: creating and maintaining a public education system. It’s just a mandate. These things per the text in Article 7 section 1 of our state constitution, are not prohibitions on the legislature’s power to create additional educational options. The Texas Supreme Court has held that decades ago — and the plain language of the provision says as much — as long as there’s a public school system before and after the program, we’re fine. There’s nothing stopping the legislature from enacting SB-2.
After Panju’s comments, Sen. Mayes Middleton offered Panju leading questions to emphasize the Senate position that SB-2 is completely legal. He asked, “So I guess just to kind of sum it all up, constitutional arguments against this bill are essentially meritless, right?”
Panju responded: “Correct. As they relate to the religion clauses or education clause, there’s nothing about this bill that comes anywhere close to violating those. … So Texas does have no aid provisions, but if they were going to be enforced at all to stop a choice program, that would violate the Free Exercise Clause. And so those have been put to bed vis-a-vis choice programs. Again, because choice programs are individual aid to individuals who have free exercise rights.
Matt Ticzkus
Matt Ticzkus, regional director of the Mid-South American Association of Christian Schools which is affiliated with American Association of Christian Schools (a school credentialing organization), testified:
The autonomy and religious liberty language contained in the bill is exceptionally strong as it conveys to participating schools that they’re free to carry out the mission of their school with no impact to curriculum admissions or hiring, and that a participating school is not a recipient of federal financial funds or a state actor.
Taxpayer funds, school choice and accreditation
What Arif Panju failed to mention in his testimony before the Texas Senate committee was that a bill identical to Texas’ was just ruled unconstitutional in South Carolina by that state’s Supreme Court. Perhaps he failed to mention it because his organization is now involved in and has a financial stake in seeing this issue make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What Matt Ticzkus failed to mention in his testimony is more interesting. He introduced himself as follows:
I’m a volunteer board member for the Texas Private Schools Association representing the 941 accredited nonprofit Texas schools who serve more than 300,000 students. I’m here today in support of SB-2. At the outset of my testimony, I want to affirm on behalf of our members that we appreciate the work that public schools do, and we consider them to be partners in educating the next generation. For nine years, I served as head of school at a small private school in North Texas, and today I serve as a regional director for a nonprofit. I’m not a highly paid lobbyist or some big donor, nor do I represent one.
“As SB-2 currently stands, there is no requirement that private schools be accredited to receive taxpayer funds.”
To quote Shakespeare, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
It turns out Tisczus is the regional director of the Mid-South American Association of Christian Schools, which is a subsidiary of American Association of Christian Schools, a credentialing organization for Christian private schools focused on delivering curriculum that embraces a “biblical worldview.”
As SB-2 currently stands, there is no requirement that private schools be accredited to receive taxpayer funds.
Jennifer Allmon
As Jennifer Allmon, executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, noted:
All schools should be held accountable to ensure high academic standards. The Texas Private School Accreditation Commission, known as TEPSAC, coordinates with TEA to ensure quality in private schools by monitoring and approving accreditors for non-public schools, we are concerned that the bill may have some accreditation loopholes that need to be addressed, and we’re happy to work with members to address those. For example, section 29.358 B leaves out critical language requiring accreditation for private schools. That has been included in every Senate bill that has passed the Senate since 2000. We’d like to see that return to that section.
It is here we land at the crux of just why people like Tisczus are especially pleased with the current iteration of the bill and the “religious freedom” it affords private schools.
The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops and other Mainline Protestant denominations support private schools being accredited by either the Texas Education Agency (TEA) or by the Texas Private School Accreditation Commission (TEPSAC). These agencies are not to be confused with Texas Private Schools Association (TPSA) of which Tisczus is a board member. The latter group is a policy advocacy organization that represents 19 other credentialing organizations — one of which is the organization he works for.
Last year, Huffington Post conducted an audit of 7,200 private schools across the country receiving taxpayer funding through school choice programs. They found 75% of participating schools are religious. Specifically, 42% are non-Catholic Christian, 31% are Catholic, 23% are nonsectarian/secular, 2% are Jewish and 1% are Muslim.
They did a deep-dive into the curriculum being taught by the 42% non-Catholic Christian schools and found 33% were using textbooks from the leading publishers selling curriculum emphasizing a “biblical worldview” marked by creationism and a rejection of science.
By comparison, I did a deep dive into Texas Private Schools Association and the 941 schools currently credentialed by one of its member organizations. I found roughly two-thirds of them advertise that they teach a “biblical worldview.” Many utilize curriculum produced by Abeka, Purposeful Design Publications, Accelerated Christian Education and Bob Jones University Press.
“Science from a ‘biblical worldview’ is junk science.”
Science from a “biblical worldview” is junk science. It means the teaching of young-earth creationism. If you’re unfamiliar with what this means, it’s the belief that the Bible is to be treated as a scientifically accurate textbook and used as a counterpoint to reject the science behind evolution, climate science, the age of the earth and more.
To be clear: Modern-day Catholics and Mainline Protestants do not see a conflict between science and faith. It is only certain kinds of extremist Christian sects that do.
What the curriculum says
I was curious about these schools that advertise using “comprehensive, biblically based curriculum” from these providers and what, exactly, is in the curriculum. So I purchased some to review for myself from Abeka, the largest of the “biblical worldview” curriculum providers.
I purchased the following student science textbooks: Seventh grade science textbook Science: Order and Design, eighth grade science textbook Science: Earth and Space and 10th grade science textbook Biology: God’s Living Creation.
Each of the three textbooks begins its introduction by locating the study of science and the scientist in relation to the Bible. For example, the opening of the seventh grade textbook reads:
Through science, man has greatly increased his knowledge of God’s creation and used that knowledge to benefit mankind. In fact, many early modern scientists who believed in God — great men like Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Sir Francis Bacon, and Robert Boyle — wrote of God’s infinite wisdom and design, evidenced in their studies of creation. These men established that the purpose of science is carefully observing nature, discovering the laws of creation, and using those laws for mankind’s benefit. This purpose fulfills God’s first command to Adam and Eve: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Each of the three textbooks devotes a chapter to dismissing the theory of evolution as “superstition” and “bad science” in favor of young-earth creationism. The ramifications of this belief touch every aspect of each of the three textbooks.
“What are some reasons that man should not be considered a mammal? Use Scripture to back your reasoning.”
The seventh grade section on mammals claims: “Although man has the physical characteristics of a mammal and was created on the same day as the land animals (Gen. 1:24–26), he is unique and separate from animals, including mammals.” The review section at the end of the chapter includes the question: “What are some reasons that man should not be considered a mammal? Use Scripture to back your reasoning.”
The seventh grade textbook also states that the wide variety of felines today (from tigers to the domestic cat) “probably came from the two ‘cats’ that got off Noah’s ark.” The eighth grade textbook goes even further with this notion by including a section analyzing the dimensions of Noah’s ark to make the case that all life today easily could have come from the inhabitants of the ark.
All three textbooks attribute the biblical flood to every known phenomenon in our world from the extinction of the dinosaurs (who, the textbooks claim roamed the earth with humans) to the erosion of rocks.
The textbooks also warn students to distrust science. The eighth grade section on geology states:
Geology also covers such topics as the features of the earth’s surface, the formation of the earth’s features, earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion, and fossils. Unfortunately, some areas of geology, especially the study of fossils, have become dominated by evolutionary philosophy. Therefore, we must be careful not to assume that the hypotheses and theories of modern evolutionary geologists are the best explanations for the existing features of the earth. God, the only eyewitness to the formation and geologic history of the earth, sheds light on these areas in His Word; and His statements are irreconcilable with evolutionary philosophy. For example, the great Flood in Genesis 7 and 8 is undoubtedly responsible for most of the earth’s present features and fossils, although evolutionists reject the Flood as a myth.
All three textbooks then go on to claim the universe, solar system and earth are all less than 10,000 years old. The seventh grade textbook includes a special section that states, in part:
Evolutionists do not reject the biblical age of the earth because scientific evidence indicates that the earth is billions of years old; rather, they reject it because their faith in the unproven and unprovable ideas of uniformitarianism and evolution requires an old Earth. In fact, when the scientific evidence for the age of the earth is examined without evolutionary assumptions, the evidence agrees with the biblical teaching that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Like the choice whether to believe in evolution or Creation, the choice whether to believe in an old Earth (billions of years old) or a young Earth (only thousands of years old) depends entirely on where one chooses to put his faith: in matter, energy, and error-prone human reason, or in God and His perfect and true Word.
The eighth grade textbook reinforces this belief with thought-provoking review questions like: “If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, as a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates, why must the continents have moved much faster in the past if they were ever together?”
Reinforcing young-earth creationism, the 10th grade textbook, when introducing the fossil record states:
Fossils are the remains or impressions of plants, animals, and humans preserved in sedimentary rock. Countless billions of fossils are found in the earth’s crust, most of which were probably buried during the worldwide Flood of Noah.
Especially troubling in each of the three textbooks are the chapters on ecology. Each textbook emphasizes Genesis 1:28, which states that humankind is to have “dominion” over the earth.
Before exploring the subject of renewable resources, the seventh grade textbook warns:
As Christians, we need to be careful to follow scriptural commands and avoid getting caught up in the world’s preservationist attitude. The following are some things we should remember: 1) Human life is sacred; animals and nature are not (Gen. 9:2–6); 2) God has given man dominion over nature (Gen. 1:28); 3) Man is charged with taking care of nature (Lev. 25:1–5).
Later, on the issue of climate science and climate change (the textbook does acknowledge that humans are at least partially responsible for the latter), the text warns:
Knowledge of science is essential to being a well-informed Christian who follows God’s commands to subdue and have dominion. Environmental hysteria comes from misinformation. To avoid misinformation, you should wisely use the scientific method to experiment and to interpret facts without bias, just as scientists should do. Collect the facts. Learn about advancements. Practicing conservation as part of good stewardship (managing nature for God as caretakers) brings glory to God.
The eighth grade textbook includes the same warning as above with this added text preceding it:
Many people hold unbiblical perspectives about the environment. One unbiblical perspective that people take is placing the earth’s needs above the needs of mankind. Some environmentalists disapprove of the harvesting of trees or the use of fossil fuels for any reason. Often, environmentalists treat humans as unimportant or as nature’s enemy and, in their attempt to protect nature, are a detriment to man. The most dangerous aspect of modern environmentalism is that it promotes a reverence for creation that should be reserved for God alone. The idea that nature is god is pantheism. We are to worship the Creator, not the creation. In Romans 1:25, God rebukes those who “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” The first verse of the Bible shows that God is separate from His creation; He alone deserves worship.
The 10th grade textbook modifies the above warnings of getting involved in the fight against climate change:
Unfortunately, some people take conservation to such an extreme that they stress the welfare of nature above that of man. In their zeal to protect the environment, they dismiss man’s needs as unimportant. For example, some environmental extremists object to the harvesting of trees for any reason. Yet God created trees to provide people with lumber for homes, furniture, paper, household heating, and cooking. Forestry not only benefits mankind but also benefits the ecosystem by thinning a forest of diseased and dying trees to make room for new growth. Of course, if too many trees are cut down in an area the results can be detrimental, but cutting down a few trees where a highway or building is planned is reasonable. Logging companies can replant in forests where they harvest, and trees will reproduce on their own unless too many are harvested.
This curriculum teaches young people to reject all kinds of science from geology to biology. What are the implications for this kind of education for the fields of medicine, ecology, meteorology and more?
The curriculum is so heinous that I’ve gone to the trouble of including downloadable pdfs of sections from each textbook so that taxpayers, researchers and educators can see for themselves what tax money is being used for. Scroll down for access.
The fight against school vouchers
The National Center for Science Education has a page dedicated to 10 major court cases in which various courts — including the U.S. Supreme Court — have rejected young-earth creationism and, more recently, “intelligent design,” in public school education. In each instance, the courts ruled that using taxpayer funds to teach these beliefs violates both state and First Amendment establishment clauses.
The major U.S. Supreme Court case on this matter was decided in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard. The ruling declared Louisiana’s “Creationism Act” unconstitutional. The act dictated that any teacher teaching evolution in public schools must also teach creationism.
“The court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term ‘creation science,’ the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught.”
More recently, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III issued a judgment in 2005 in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover. The Dover Area School Board had a policy that required “students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.” Teachers also were required to read an announcement in their biology classes that said: “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. … As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.”
In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones issued a scathing rebuke of creationism which had been renamed “intelligent design,” stating for the record that this “is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.”
Texas Senate Bill 2 has no accreditation requirements. As noted by Jennifer Allmon in her testimony on behalf of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, “Section 29.358 B leaves out critical language requiring accreditation for private schools. That has been included in every Senate bill that has passed the Senate since 2000.”
Specifically, that accreditation should come from the Texas Private School Accreditation Commission, which coordinates with the TEA. Any private school receiving taxpayer funds should be prohibited from teaching anything but real science in their schools.
Roughly two-thirds of the 941 private schools credentialed by the 19 other credentialing agencies that are part of the Texas Private Schools Association teach creationism. Which is why their representative, Matt Tisczkus, lauded “the autonomy and religious liberty language contained in the bill (that) conveys to participating schools that they’re free to carry out the mission of their school with no impact to curriculum, admissions or hiring.”
Parents have a right to educate their children as they wish — even if that means teaching them junk science. But that right must be balanced by the rights of taxpayers who do not wish to see their taxes diverted to religious teachings with which they disagree.
Mara Richards Bim serves as a Clemons Fellow with BNG and as program director at Faith Commons. She is a spiritual director and a recent master of divinity degree graduate from Perkins School of Theology at SMU. She also is an award-winning theater artist and founder of the nationally acclaimed Cry Havoc Theater Company which operated in Dallas from 2014 to 2023.
Access downloadable PDFs of sample curriculum.
Related articles:
When flat earthers and creationists find common ground | Analysis by Rick Pidcock
Voters in three states reject school vouchers
‘School choice’ expected to grow under Trump